ISIS has surely enraged enough countries in the world to warrent their demise.
What will it take to get rid of these assholes?
Printable View
ISIS has surely enraged enough countries in the world to warrent their demise.
What will it take to get rid of these assholes?
America to stop invading countries and leaving power vacuums would be a good start.
Personally, I think it great that muslims are fighting among themselves. I would prefer America not get into any other conflicts, but I do not call the shots.
I just thought any entity that has pissed off so many governments would be wiped off the face of the earth in short order.
Those Dysons are pretty handy in a close quarters shit-fight but an AK-47 has a bit more range.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
:usa:
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/02/887.jpg
Maybe a crack squad of 50,000 Oklahoma Pharmacists......
(with reloads)
Well, ISIS hasn't got any fear that the Obummer will help in their demise now do they? :chitown:
Obama Refused to Assist Jordan, Egypt With Information on ISIS Targets
Oliver North told Greta Van Susteren tonight that the Egyptian government asked the US for information on ISIS targets in Libya yesterday after ISIS beheaded 21 Christians. But, the Obama Administration refused the request. The Obama administration also refused to give Jordan information on ISIS targets in Syria after their pilot was burned alive in a cage.
“President El Sisi asked for American intelligence targeting intelligence before today’s strikes and didn’t get it. King Abdullah of Jordan asked for Intelligence data on targets to respond to the murder of a Jordanian aircraft pilot. The Kurds are begging for arms and ammo from the United States, not one bullet has been delivered by the United States.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYL5iGG5QM
What an impeccable source :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Indeed they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
You do recall that at least 'ol Ollie did something to get our people back from >550 days of captivity in I-Ran don't you? With a do-nothing Democrat in Big White, those folks were doomed.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/02/897.jpg
Obama says we just need to give those mis-understood ISIS thugs some jobs! :rofl:
Heh...Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
That'll work most every instance.
ADD: stop creating and then maintaining your invented enemies.
What will it take to create the demise of a greater terror network - the USA??
:)
It will take a boogeyman in a few years who they can capture. The west will announce a big win. The west will then announce a new Islamic group called 'IAMATIT' has promised rage on the west. You, me and many idiots like us will believe it to keep the weapons, drug and pharmaceutical bathing in tax payer money!
Trading arms with them to ensure the hostages would be held until after Reagans inauguration?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Do nothing? These guys might disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/02/901.jpg
You're mixed up. He facilitated arms sales to Iran to secure hostages held during Reagan's second term and fund the Contras in Nicaragua.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
This article published by France 24 gives a pretty good overview of the complexity of the recent developments in Libya and the results of NATO fighting a half-assed action and then leaving the asylum unattended so the lunatics can take over....:)
It's a bit lengthy, but then it's not the kind of thing that can be covered by one line posters.
France 24
Leela JACINTO
The drums for an international military intervention in Libya against the Islamic State (IS) group are beating from Cairo to Rome. But four years after a NATO-led intervention toppled Muammar Gaddafi, is the West ready for another Libyan mission?
Egyptians woke up Monday to blanket coverage of their country’s latest version of shock and awe, with footage of F-16 fighter jets rolling out of hangars in the dead of night, heading for bombing runs against Islamic State (IS) targets in neighbouring Libya.
As state and private TV stations broadcast a soaring Ministry of Defense loop of the mighty Egyptian military at work, a male narrator, informed viewers in somber deep tones that the nation was at war. “Honour the nation,” intoned the voiceover. “This is the slogan of men who ask for death as a sacrifice for the nation. They are men who do not know the meaning of impossible.”
But by Monday evening, as the euphoria of Egypt’s retaliation for the IS group’s killing of 21 Coptic Christians settled, reality had started to settle in. And with it, the realization that in Libya today, impossible is not just a possibility, it’s a certainty.
With rival governments barely holding together coalitions in two Libyan port cities across the Mediterranean coastline, a motley mix of Islamist groups competing with local militias for power, and an under-populated southern desert expanse providing ideal jihadist training ground, Libya today is a mess of impossible proportions.
The lack of viable options – and absence of a cohesive international or regional strategy – became apparent hours after the Egyptian Defense Ministry announced the latest strikes in Libya against IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets.
As Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi worked the phones, pushing his French and Italian counterparts for a robust response at the UN to the Libyan crisis, the UN Security Council by Monday night had done little more than issue a statement condemning the weekend slaughter of the Egyptian Christians in the Libyan city of Sirte.
The next day, Sisi kept up the pressure in an interview with French radio Europe 1 when he urged the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution allowing for a military intervention in Libya.
Sisi’s interview came as French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian was in Cairo to sign a €5.2 billion contract for the sale of 24 French Rafale fighter jets.
Four years after French Rafale jets targeted the Muammar Gaddafi regime, France – and the rest of Europe – is waking to the cost of abandoning a country in the throes of post-revolutionary euphoria and expecting a nation to magically set itself on the democratic path with little international help.
With the hopes of the so-called Arab Spring crushed in a jihadist winter of discontent, Western Europe has already started suffering blowback from the latest conflicts in the Middle East. Libya, a country that lies just a short boat ride away from southern European shores, is a particularly significant threat. threat.
The risks are especially high for Italy, Libya’s former colonial power, which relies heavily on Libyan oil and natural gas to meet its energy requirements.
The drums of military intervention have been beating loud in recent days in Rome, where Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni said Italy was “ready to fight” to help secure Libya and Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti told an Italian TV station on Sunday that, “If in Afghanistan we sent 5,000 men, in a country like Libya which is much closer to home, and where the risk of deterioration is much more worrisome for Italy, our mission and commitment could be significant, even numerically.''
The problem though is that in its rush to address the lack of attention and a post-revolutionary plan in Libya, Europe – egged on by an ever assertive Sisi – risks dragging the international community into yet another shortsighted intervention in the North African nation.
Airstrikes won’t solve a jihadi problem on the ground
In a phone interview with FRANCE 24 from the eastern Libyan city of Tobruk, Mohamed Eljarh, a Foreign Policy columnist and analyst at the Atlantic Council, worried that a push for an international intervention would not ultimately serve Libyan interests.
“The problem is Libya is becoming less of a Libyan problem and more of a regional and international problem and I’m not sure how helpful that would be for Libya and Libyans,” said Eljarh. “The international community is sending mixed messages, there’s no clear idea of who to support, and the Egyptian airstrikes are not in the interests of Libyans or Egyptians. It’s just a reaction from an Egypt feeling pressured to act.”
Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry left for New York Monday in a bid to secure backing for military intervention from UN Security Council. On Wednesday, Shoukry is expected to push the Egyptian position at an international summit on terrorism in Washington.
But some experts, such as Wolfram Lacher from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, caution against an international rush to support Egypt’s Libya plan. “I don’t think an intervention would provide a solution,” said Lacher. “If the international community is trying to intervene in the current situation with no viable Libyan interlocutor or partner, air strikes are certainly not going to solve the jihadi problem. What’s needed is action on the ground – and that requires the formation of a Libyan coalition to lead the fight against jihadis. It requires the formation of a unity government”.
All eyes on UN-brokered peace talks
The Libyan post-revolutionary political crisis reached surreal proportions last year, when Islamists and their allies reacted to their defeat in the June 2014 parliamentary election by forming the Libya Dawn militia alliance and seizing the capital of Tripoli. The newly elected, internationally approved parliament then fled to the eastern Libyan port city of Tobruk and the two sides have been at war of sorts from either side of the Mediterranean coastline.
Efforts to reach a political solution have centered around UN-brokered peace talks to try to bring the two sides together. Last month, UN special envoy to Libya Bernadino Leon opened talks in Geneva, which were promptly abandoned since Libya Dawn representatives failed to show up.
The turnout at subsequent talks in the northwestern Libyan city of Ghadames last week was better, although participants acknowledged that the process was in its very early stages.
Nevertheless Leon, a seasoned Spanish diplomat, remains convinced that the peace process represents the only solution to the current impasse – and many experts and Western officials agree with that assessment.
In a column in the English language Libya Herald on Tuesday, US Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones noted that the US continues to “support Bernadino Leon’s UN dialogue despite the arguments of those who now insist that the urgency of the fight against ISIL makes the dialogue irrelevant.”
Airstrikes ‘can be counterproductive’
The voices of caution have been gaining support in some anti-terror circles despite Egypt’s call for an expansion of the US-led fight against the IS group from the Syria-Iraq theater into North Africa.
International aerial campaigns against jihadist groups are, by their very nature, limited by the lack of targets on the ground. In Libya, the situation is complicated by the presence of myriad Islamist groups, some of them competing for influence and others forming temporary alliances against a common enemy.
At least three militant groups inside Libya have pledged allegiance to the IS group. The Egyptian airstrikes earlier this week targeted IS position in Derna, an eastern Libyan city with a long history of Islamist radicalization. But within Derna, rival Islamist groups, including breakaway brigades, have been fighting for control of strategic sites across the city.
While most Libyans have little patience for jihadist groups, FRANCE 24’s Wassim Nasr warns that continued airstrikes could change public opinion on the ground. “We know that airstrikes and drone strikes can be very counterproductive,” explained Nasr, an expert on jihadist groups. “The Egyptian airstrikes hit a neighborhood in Derna, so civilians were killed.
This equation made the IS group stronger in Syria, the same equation made them stronger in Iraq so it’s very delicate and they can gain support if total war is waged on Libyan soil.”
Haftar is a vigilante’
If Libya’s complex stew of Islamist groups presents a massive hurdle for any international military coalition, the state of the Libyan anti-Islamist camp presents hardly any solace.
Libyan anti-Islamist groups routinely refer to all stripes of Islamist factions as “Daesh” – the derogatory Arabic acronym for the IS group. On the other hand, Islamist groups are known to slam anti-Islamist militias as remnants of Gaddafi-era soldiers and “fedayeen”.
One of the more controversial figures in the latter camp is General Khalifa Haftar, a former Gaddafi-era military official who briefly enjoyed CIA support when he turned against the Libyan strongman in the late 1980s.
Despite lingering allegations of Haftar’s CIA-linked past, Washington has made it increasingly clear in recent times that the controversial Libyan militia chief does not enjoy US support.
In a detailed profile on Haftar, the New Yorker’s Jon Lee Anderson quotes a senior US official as emphatically stating, “The US government has nothing to do with General Khalifa Haftar. Haftar is killing people, and he says he is targeting terrorists, but his definition is way too broad. Haftar is a vigilante.”
Haftar is widely believed to enjoy the support of Egypt’s Sisi – according to the New Yorker, his army “reportedly receives weapons and financing from Egypt” as well as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia.
Any move by the international community to get behind an Egyptian initiative risks pitting Western countries into a regional cauldron with Egypt, Saudi Arabic and the UAE supporting Haftar’s Dignity forces against the Islamist Libya Dawn camp supported by Qatar and Turkey.
Amid the growing hazards of the international community getting embroiled in yet another Arab proxy war, Washington has increasingly calling for a Libyan solution to a Libyan problem. “It is time for Libyans to realize that only they can build a new Libya; only they can save their country,” wrote US Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones in the Libyan Herald.
The problem though would be if European governments are slow to come to this realisation and wade into another conflict with no viable local partners or political or military strategy in sight.
Boy, they certainly didn't teach you any history at UW did they? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
"On January 20, 1981, at the moment Reagan completed his 20‑minute inaugural address after being sworn in as President, the 52 American hostages were released by Iran into U.S. custody, having spent 444 days in captivity."
"The first inauguration of Ronald Reagan as the 40th President of the United States was held on January 20, 1981. The inauguration marked the commencement of the first four-year term of Ronald Reagan as President and George H. W. Bush as Vice President. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger administered the oath of office. Minutes later, the Americans held hostage in Iran were released."
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/02/906.jpg
Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haven't had a POTUS of his caliber since...:confused:
And what did that have to do with Ollie North, as you claimed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Going to take "Cowboys & Muslims". They have a 1,400 year head start & now they are very well funded. Going to take a long while .... all over the world. Likely not in our life times.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Ollie was the middleman doing the deal. You really don't recall? :yerman:Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
^He was part of the botched rescue mission. He had nothing to do with these 'secret negotiations' you are recalling in error.
What's with your feeble recollection of history there Bert?Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://genius.com/Oliver-north-relea...memo-annotated
Actually, Colonel North played a deeply active role regarding the Iran-Contra mess....Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
ISIS is being funded by very wealthy individuals from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other areas.
Their ideas will never be 100% defeated, as some will always follow and believe. As for the land control strategy, the way to beat them is to kill as many as possible.
I assume we all know that.
Airstrike, assasinations, Intell, and possible ground troops.
4,000 US troops to Kuwait.
Perhaps there will be engagement.
Seems they didn't teach that course at the University of Wiscosin when K. Humbert attended...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by thaimemeActually, Colonel North played a deeply active role regarding the Iran-Contra mess....Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Please try and follow along Yoda. I cited the nefarious and illegal Iran-Contra affair that he was involved with in a previous post. Booners is under the mistaken impression that North had some kind of active role in negotiating the release of the hostages held captive by Iran from the US Embassy takeover during the Carter years.Quote:
Originally Posted by thaimeme
Clearly, that was not the thrust of my OP w/regard to said Ollie's involvement in securing the hostages release but, at this point, what does it matter? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Well that goes without saying because I attended there before any of these events occured. Did they teach predicting the future at Surfer U.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Of course it was. Please slime out without dignity as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Heh...well, they did an excellent job at Surfer U imbedding in my consciousness a un-appreciation for the fauex surfer chick! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Plus, avoidence of mobs roaming throughout the campus area burning down branches of the BofA
Yes, I agree. And it was well known refuge for the tennis bum set of So Cal to avoid getting drafted during the Viet Nam war.:)
Nothing wrong with avoiding imperial wars....Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
:)
I can imagine legitimate reasons why location intel is sensitive to share with these semi-allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
US gets in enough trouble over its own drone strikes when they go wrong and that is with live feedback from drone cameras on location updates.
Sharing enemy position info with semi-allies to support their air strikes when you are not sure exactly what they are going to do with it or when and will blame US intel when they fuck it up is a reason to be cautious.
Also the detailed position info is live from a drone camera and these drones are armed so would normally be doing the bombing themselves.
Also relaying drone info in real-time reveals the location of your drones and they don't fly very fast. If the info gets into the wrong hands (which is a risk with this sort of 'ally') you stand to lose assets and face.
The western governments have tetra bytes of "intelligence" at hand. Unfortunately they have no idea what is "hard intelligence" i.e real and what is clutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
The killing of the Muslim civilians in France and Denmark show conclusively that had the "suspects" been given a fair trial it would show the inadequacy of the said "intelligence. As for pulling out a "high level" ISIS leader , parading in front of a camera/jury and letting him/her speak is not a good idea - too many truths would be revealed.
It is much easier to kill them, name them and blame them with no or little evidence.
Take you heads out of the sand.
The ISIS will not be standing in formation in bright red jackets for you to identify, target and obliterate from an Oregon bunker.
Are you referring to the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly who committed the terrorist atrocities in Paris and Omar el-Hussein who murdered an attendee at the Denmark meeting to discuss free speech and then murdered a synagogue guard later on?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Are you suggesting that they were unjustly dealt with by the anti-terrorist agents who shot them?
I am suggesting that any divergence from civilised behaviour leads to anarchy. The western idea of civilised behaviour is to subject all accused persons, nobody is above the law, to "Trial by Jury" in a public court. Not pre-emtive murder. Which is how many governments, police and armed forces now operate.
Your post suggested, to me, that "intelligence" must form the key to actions. My reply suggested that FACTS are the key to correct decisions not "sexed up" reports/intelligence......... Subsequently shown to be totally false.
(Those who are familiar with the UK's, then PM, Blairs decision to commit troops to one of the many ME wars/US politicians holding up "intelligence photographs" in a UN assembly debate etc. etc. etc. will understand the "sexed up" reference.)
Not in a situation where the suspect is armed and shooting at security forces with no apparent intention of giving himself up when trapped. These guys are on self-engineered suicide missions as they well know.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
We were talking about the US unwillingness to share its intelligence with some muslim nations fighting IS. I was saying there are reasons not to share intelligence. What has that got to do with your poorly formulated attempt to distinguish between 'FACTS' and 'intelligence'? The digression is neither logical nor relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
^Thank you for your considered comments.
These are facts or "newspaper headlines"?
The decision possibly indicated that the US "intelligence" is thought, by the US Military, to be worthless "chatter"Quote:
Originally Posted by Looper
But hey, lets go with the "newspaper headlines".
Danish Muslim Swore Allegiance To ISIS Just Before Terror Attack On Mohammed Cartoonist.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
If only Obama could have found him a job!
"The jihadi who murdered two civilians in Denmark swore allegiance to Islamic State just nine minutes before his first attack.
Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein declared his devotion to the terror group on his Facebook page and then gunned down a film director at a free speech debate in Copenhagen.
The 22-year-old fanatic later killed a volunteer security guard at a synagogue before police shot him dead.
Last night it emerged that Danish intelligence service PET was warned that El-Hussein had become radicalised while in prison.
A senior member of his former gang, called the Brothas, said El-Hussein had been released two weeks ago.
Abo Saddam added: ‘When he went inside he was a member of our gang. He lived his life with us. We would drive around, smoke hashish together, fight rival gangs. This is the Omar that I knew.
‘But when he came out he changed. He stopped keeping in touch with the Brothas.
‘Prison changed him. He became a much harder Muslim with more hardcore beliefs. He wanted to act on those beliefs as well, instead of just talking about them.’
The 24-year-old gangster added: ‘He went into prison a gang member like us and came out wanting to wage holy war.’
Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein swore allegiance to ISIS on Facebook moments before Copenhagen attacks | Daily Mail Online
Thank god for Fukbook" it's a good job the "intelligence" services don't monitor/write the pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
These "gang members" will do owt for a joint. Even appear in court for the trial. Oh we won't be needing one as the suspect, what a quaint old fashioned word, has been murdered and blamed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
I take it that is your speculation on the matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
If it was worthless chatter why would they say they are refusing to share it. They would say it is worthless chatter and they don't have any useful intel to share.
The US will certainly have good intel on target locations with their high altitude surveillance tech. This will certainly be useful to muslim nations planning bombing raids on IS.